economic output emissions intensity vs global emissions / global GDP

hildes wrote:
You are very unfunny, you should know that.


No need to count cow burps (yes it's burps not farts, sorry RIP all your witty jokes). If you know how a typical cow behaves you can extrapolate but I am guessing these words don't mean much to you. What is this forum anyway, I previously saw other people talking BS about how climate change is not real. Guess I just ended up on that side of the internet, the one for "differently able" people.

Just leaving this out here if you want to actually learn something about the climate.
https://jancovici.com/en/category/climate-change/

hildes wrote:
Hi,

I was reading the IEA Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021 (https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-co2-emissions-in-2021-2)

and it says "the average emissions intensity of global economic output stayed constant at 0.26 tonnes of CO2 per USD 1 000"

On the other hand I know that global GHG emissions are around 40 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent and that methane is roughly 20%, so CO2 accounts must be roughly 32 billion tCO2.
To be exact "In 2021, global anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions rebounded and by 5.3% in comparison of 2020, totaling 37.9 Gt CO2, just 0.36% below 2019 levels." (https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news/global-co2-emissions-rebound-2021-after-temporary-reduction-during-covid19-lockdown-2022-10-14_en)


Finally world GDP in 2021 was 96.1 trillion USD (google), or 96100 billion USD.

Combining these things we get an average CO2 intensity of 37.9 e9 tCO2 per 96100 e9 USD = 37.9 tCO2/96100 USD = 0.39

How can such a large inconsistency arise?

To put it another way, if the economic output CO2 intensity really was 0.26 tCO2/1000USD then world CO2 emission in 2019 would have to be 25 billion tonnes, which is 34% less than what they actually are.

Is "global economic output" not the same as world GDP? GDP overestimates the true "value" generated (and I don't claim to have a definition of "value", but just intuitively) since it counts exchanges of stuff between people and companies, so there is some double counting if you will. But then this makes the numbers even more inconsistent, because replacing 96.1 trillion with something smaller leads to a CO2 intensity even larger than the 0.39 I got...

hildes wrote:
I previously saw other people talking BS about how climate change is not real.

hildes wrote:You are very unfunny, you should know that.

hildes wrote:No need to count cow burps (yes it's burps not farts, sorry RIP all your witty jokes).

hildes wrote:If you know how a typical cow behaves you can extrapolate but I am guessing these words don't mean much to you.

hildes wrote:What is this forum anyway,

hildes wrote:I previously saw other people talking BS about how climate change is not real.

hildes wrote: Guess I just ended up on that side of the internet, the one for "differently able" people.

"What it really comes down to is Margin-of-Error. The data used is incomplete, and full of holes. Those holes can be filled, and the data set expanded using proxies and analogs. All of which add considerably to the error. It's fine to use for illustrating a concept, or marketing. Just not accurate to support the idea. It's kind of like the products 'As Seen on TV', which look like really cool stuff, but actually basically worthless plastic, you are luck not to break getting out of the packaging. Only a very small percentage of consumers will actually complain to customer service for a refund/replacement. Under $20, it's just not worth the time on the phone, aggregation, frustration."

hildes wrote:
1) We are talking about a change that takes place over decades to centuries. It is not noticeable on smaller time scales
2) We are currently at 1.1 degrees above pre-industrial levels and are already seeing devastating effects.

hildes wrote:
the average earth temperature

hildes wrote:
This basically proves how we are emitting excess CO2 in large quantities into the atmosphere since a few hundred years ago.

hildes wrote:
Now I also don't want to sound like a person who says that you should just blindly believe everything people say about climate change.

hildes wrote:
simplest things go through a series of processes that no single person can understand entirely

hildes wrote:First let me just say I am honored that such a large number of you found my question interesting

hildes wrote:About the cows farting vs burping question: [link to bogus misinformation deleted]

hildes wrote:About methane being more potent with respect to warming potential, I believe you are correct,

hildes wrote: Since methane stays in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time than CO2

hildes wrote: it is not straightforward to compare their warming potential,

hildes wrote: ... that's why people generally set the period to 100 years and look how much the same amount X kg of methane vs X kg of CO2 would contribute global warming.

hildes cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

hildes cited:And about me being British, good guess, but it's a miss.

hildes cited:I'll give you a tip, in my original post I linked to the website of a well known French climate and energy expert

hildes cited: I put climate denialists and conspiracy theorists in the same bag

hildes cited:First of all, it's a minority of you guys that think climate change is not real.

hildes cited:But to answer your question I would first note that you don't need to know all the technical details of everything,

hildes cited:So don't treat climate change any differently than toothpaste.

hildes cited:Now I also don't want to sound like a person who says that you should just blindly believe everything people say about climate change.

hildes cited: The general consensus is

hildes cited: ... that the climate is changing at an unprecedented rate in human history,

hildes cited: ... and that human made greenhouse gas emissions are causing this change.

hildes cited: There are certain topics where we are still unsure of what is happening exactly, or what will happen if emissions don't cease.

hildes cited:For me one thing which really when l saw it left no doubt about climate change and how we are causing it is the CO2 concentration levels and oxygen concentration levels measured in different parts of the world since 1970:

hildes cited: If you want you can choose not to believe it...

hildes cited:[deleted EVASION of an unambiguous definition of the global climate]

hildes cited:A little known fact: the average earth temperature during the last glacial period was about 5 degrees Celsius lower than today's average temperature.

hildes cited:The ocean level was around 120 meters lower than what it is today

hildes wrote:

————————————————
To IBdaMann:

About the cows farting vs burping question: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/33/which-is-a-bigger-methane-source-cow-belching-or-cow-flatulence/

About methane being more potent with respect to warming potential, I believe you are correct, over a period of 100 years methane is supposedly 27 to 30 times more potent than CO2. Since methane stays in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time than CO2 it is not straightforward to compare their warming potential, that's why people generally set the period to 100 years and look how much the same amount X kg of methane vs X kg of CO2 would contribute global warming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
Over a shorter period of time the GWP of methane would be higher in terms of CO2 equivalent, since as I said earlier, methane stays in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time, therefore most of the heating happens shortly after the it was emitted (while for CO2 it is more uniform over time).

hildes wrote:
And about me being British, good guess, but it's a miss. I'll give you a tip, in my original post I linked to the website of a well known French climate and energy expert

for a conspiracy theorist (actually I don't know if you are one, but I put climate denialists and conspiracy theorists in the same bag) you aren't very good at investigative journalism.

hildes wrote:


————————————————
GasGuzzler:

First of all, it's a minority of you guys that think climate change is not real. The "rest of the world" is mostly fine, thankfully.

hildes wrote:
But to answer your question I would first note that you don't need to know all the technical details of everything, in today's world even the simplest things go through a series of processes that no single person can understand entirely. In order to make toothpaste for example, you need giant chemical plants, months of research with statistical methods to determine the toothpaste is not harmful to humans, you need similar research into the plastic that the toothpaste sits inside, you need agreements between all the parties involved (sellers, producers...), you need lawyers to write those agreements, logistics companies to execute the deliveries of the different components... The list goes on.

hildes wrote:
So don't treat climate change any differently than toothpaste.

hildes wrote:
You have no problem buying toothpaste without understanding everything that goes on behind the scenes.
Now I also don't want to sound like a person who says that you should just blindly believe everything people say about climate change. The general consensus is that the climate is changing at an unprecedented rate in human history, and that human made greenhouse gas emissions are causing this change. There are certain topics where we are still unsure of what is happening exactly, or what will happen if emissions don't cease.

hildes wrote:
For me one thing which really when l saw it left no doubt about climate change and how we are causing it is the CO2 concentration levels and oxygen concentration levels measured in different parts of the world since 1970: https://jancovici.com/en/climate-change/ghg-and-carbon-cycle/are-we-really-sure-that-its-man-that-modified-the-atmosphere/ (first graph in the article).

hildes wrote:
This basically proves how we are emitting excess CO2 in large quantities into the atmosphere since a few hundred years ago.

hildes wrote:
You do have to believe the methods work, and I haven't checked what devices were used to measure these concentrations and who made them. But this is the part where I want to invoke the toothpaste example. I just really believe CO2 concentration measuring devices work. If you want you can choose not to believe it...

hildes wrote:

Finally, to your last question "Also, if you could in your own words, briefly define climate change so we're all on the same page.".

This is a really good question. I think definitions may vary, but one thing they should all include, is the scale. Specifically there are two times of scales. One is the time scale, and the other is the space scale.

1: We are talking about a change that takes place over decades to centuries. It is not noticeable on smaller time scales.
2: It is a general trend that affects the global earth climate. A single weather event cannot be attributed to climate change, but multiple events that are part of a trend that happens over multiple years can.

A little known fact: the average earth temperature during the last glacial period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Period) was about 5 degrees Celsius lower than today's average temperature. The ocean level was around 120 meters lower than what it is today (that's 393.7 feet). 5 average degrees difference. We are currently at 1.1 degrees above pre-industrial levels and are already seing devastating effects. What do you think will happen at +2, or +3?

hildes wrote:


————————————————
to HarveyH55:

"What it really comes down to is Margin-of-Error. The data used is incomplete, and full of holes. Those holes can be filled, and the data set expanded using proxies and analogs. All of which add considerably to the error. It's fine to use for illustrating a concept, or marketing. Just not accurate to support the idea. It's kind of like the products 'As Seen on TV', which look like really cool stuff, but actually basically worthless plastic, you are luck not to break getting out of the packaging. Only a very small percentage of consumers will actually complain to customer service for a refund/replacement. Under $20, it's just not worth the time on the phone, aggregation, frustration."

Your first sentence is actually a good guess. But I don't think it can explain such a large inconsistency. I think I am probably using a different definition of the "economic output". In any case, the order of magnitude is consistent, which is good. I sent an email to IEA, I will post the answer here.

hildes wrote:

How can such a large inconsistency arise?

To put it another way, if the economic output CO2 intensity really was 0.26 tCO2/1000USD then world CO2 emission in 2019 would have to be 25 billion tonnes, which is 34% less than what they actually are.

hildes wrote:
Hi,

I was reading the IEA Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021 (https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-co2-emissions-in-2021-2)

and it says "the average emissions intensity of global economic output stayed constant at 0.26 tonnes of CO2 per USD 1 000"

hildes wrote:
On the other hand I know that global GHG emissions are around 40 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent and that methane is roughly 20%, so CO2 accounts must be roughly 32 billion tCO2.

hildes wrote:
To be exact "In 2021, global anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions rebounded and by 5.3% in comparison of 2020, totaling 37.9 Gt CO2, just 0.36% below 2019 levels." (https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news/global-co2-emissions-rebound-2021-after-temporary-reduction-during-covid19-lockdown-2022-10-14_en)

hildes wrote:
Finally world GDP in 2021 was 96.1 trillion USD (google), or 96100 billion USD.

Combining these things we get an average CO2 intensity of 37.9 e9 tCO2 per 96100 e9 USD = 37.9 tCO2/96100 USD = 0.39

How can such a large inconsistency arise?

hildes wrote:
To put it another way, if the economic output CO2 intensity really was 0.26 tCO2/1000USD then world CO2 emission in 2019 would have to be 25 billion tonnes, which is 34% less than what they actually are.

hildes wrote:
Is "global economic output" not the same as world GDP?

hildes wrote:
GDP overestimates the true "value" generated (and I don't claim to have a definition of "value", but just intuitively) since it counts exchanges of stuff between people and companies, so there is some double counting if you will.
But then this makes the numbers even more inconsistent, because replacing 96.1 trillion with something smaller leads to a CO2 intensity even larger than the 0.39 I got...

GasGuzzler wrote:

hildes wrote:
1) We are talking about a change that takes place over decades to centuries. It is not noticeable on smaller time scales
2) We are currently at 1.1 degrees above pre-industrial levels and are already seeing devastating effects.

So this is just a huge paradox. Which is it?

GasGuzzler wrote:

hildes wrote:
the average earth temperature

How is this measured? Surface temp? Atmosphere temp? What altitude? All of it? How is it measure with no thermometers thousands of years ago? How is measured today without enough thermometers?

Spongy Iris wrote:

hildes wrote:

How can such a large inconsistency arise?

To put it another way, if the economic output CO2 intensity really was 0.26 tCO2/1000USD then world CO2 emission in 2019 would have to be 25 billion tonnes, which is 34% less than what they actually are.

Looks like the reason for such a large inconsistency is inflation. GDP must not correctly account for it.

gfm7175 wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

hildes wrote:
1) We are talking about a change that takes place over decades to centuries. It is not noticeable on smaller time scales
2) We are currently at 1.1 degrees above pre-industrial levels and are already seeing devastating effects.

So this is just a huge paradox. Which is it?

GREAT catch!

It's funny how such an unnoticeable thing is having very noticeably devastating effects, eh?

GasGuzzler wrote:I was hoping hildes would stick around and give us some great examples of AGW enhanced extreme weather. I know he's still lurking and wants to return, but it may already be too late.

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:I was hoping hildes would stick around and give us some great examples of AGW enhanced extreme weather. I know he's still lurking and wants to return, but it may already be too late.

Yes, you did extend to hildes the polite request to provide some basic information before fleeing to the hills.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I was hoping hildes would stick around and give us some great examples of AGW enhanced extreme weather. I know he's still lurking and wants to return, but it may already be too late.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

hildes wrote:
1) We are talking about a change that takes place over decades to centuries. It is not noticeable on smaller time scales
2) We are currently at 1.1 degrees above pre-industrial levels and are already seeing devastating effects.

So this is just a huge paradox. Which is it?

GREAT catch!

It's funny how such an unnoticeable thing is having very noticeably devastating effects, eh?

This is very astute on GasGuzzler's part. This contradiction leads to the obvious question "What devastating effects are we already seeing?" Of course, no answer will be forthcoming except for cited examples of "extreme weather" which are totally normal but are characterized as "unprecedented" in an effort to convince everyone that undefined "extreme weather" is increasing at an accelerating rate that is worse than previously feared.

GasGuzzler simply figured that the world could probably survive without running through that entire mess yet again. Of course, we could see if that is the scientific consensus and if it is the will of the scientific community, run through the entire mess yet again with hildes. What do you think?

gfm7175 wrote:I agree with GasGuzzler that unfortunately it may already possibly undoubtedly maybe potentially almost certainly be too late.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:I agree with GasGuzzler that unfortunately it may already possibly undoubtedly maybe potentially almost certainly be too late.

To a certain extent, perhaps ... but then again, it might already be too late.

GasGuzzler wrote:Have we established a tipping point?

hildes wrote:Guys a lot of great points! Let me debunk some of them because I don't have time for everything.

hildes wrote:A few people have mentioned the 1st law of thermodynamics and how it proves the climate cannot change.

hildes wrote:But this law applies to closed systems,

hildes wrote:... whereas the earth constantly receives energy from the Sun.

hildes wrote: Also, the law does not prohibit a change in the internal distribution of the energy inside a system.

hildes wrote:About the share of climate "believers" versus enlightened skeptics:

hildes wrote:And here is just some evidence:
If you look at Climate-related Disasters Frequency,

hildes wrote:you can see a clear long term trend.

hildes wrote:Easy definition of what I want to call climate parameter space: space of all possible (realistic) combinations of the above parameters.

hildes wrote: You may notice this space happens to have 5 dimensions.

hildes wrote:Advanced definition of climate parameter space: replace each scalar value by a function (specifically a scalar field) that describes the corresponding parameter's typical behavior over one year.

hildes wrote:Finally, Definition of climate change:
Given a sequence S=(C_1,...,C_N) of climates over a number of years N, S is said to have the climate change property if it is not stationary

Nope. You cannot. Would you believe that not only are you scientifically illiterate, but you are also mathematically incompetent and extremely gullible.

Let me know if you'd like me to explain to you why your misunderstanding in this area is so egregious.

hildes wrote:Yes please explain whatever you think I don't understand in the area of mathematics, stochastic processes, statistics, probability theory and numerical methods since you are so knowledgeable.

hildes wrote:
Guys a lot of great points! Let me debunk some of them because I don't have time for everything.

hildes wrote:
A few people have mentioned the 1st law of thermodynamics and how it proves the climate cannot change.

hildes wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

hildes wrote:
But this law applies to closed systems, whereas the earth constantly receives energy from the Sun. So it is not a closed system and the law does not apply in this perimeter.

hildes wrote:
If the energy from the sun was negligible then you could argue the average energy on Earth should stay almost constant.

hildes wrote:
But the energy from the sun is considerable. Also, the law does not prohibit a change in the internal distribution of the energy inside a system.

hildes wrote:
When you light a match in a closed room you change the distribution of energy for example, but that does not violate the law of thermodynamics. We are now burning fossil fuels all over the planet and changing the distribution of the energy in that way, which releases greenhouse gases which in turn change the distribution of energy in another way, with help from the sun.

hildes wrote:
About the share of climate "believers" versus enlightened skeptics: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/
72% of people in the US believe global warming is happening, which come to think of it is quite low given all the evidence.

hildes wrote:
And here is just some evidence:
https://climatedata.imf.org/pages/climatechange-data

hildes wrote:
If you look at Climate-related Disasters Frequency, you can see a clear long term trend. Between 1980 and 2020 the number of climate related disasters per year has almost quadrupled.

hildes wrote:
https://www.wri.org/insights/global-trends-forest-fires
Tree cover loss due to fires, 2001-2021. There is a clear linear upward trend, only noticeable over multiple years.

hildes wrote:
Here is a clear unambiguous definition of climate change that I just made up:

hildes wrote:
preliminary definitions:
wind: The wind is the perceptible natural movement of the air, especially in the form of a current of air blowing from a particular direction.
temperature: physical quantity that expresses quantitatively the perceptions of hotness and coldness.
humidity: the amount of water vapor in the air
precipitation: any product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapor that falls under gravitational pull from clouds.
irradiance: radiometry term for the power per unit area of electromagnetic radiation incident on a surface.
Easy definition of what I want to call climate parameter space:
space of all possible (realistic) combinations of the above parameters. For example (3 km/h in north north west direction at certain position on earth, 24 degrees C, 40%, 10 watts per square meter, 3 mm per hour of rain). You may notice this space happens to have 5 dimensions.

hildes wrote:
Advanced definition of climate parameter space:
replace each scalar value by a function (specifically a scalar field) that describes the corresponding parameter's typical behavior over one year.
A realistic precipitation function could for example look like this: https://towardsdatascience.com/rainfall-time-series-analysis-and-forecasting-87a29316494e
Similar for an irradiance function, just google solar irradiance time series.
For wind it would be a vector field over a sphere, indexed by time.
Definition of climate:
Given the climate parameter space that I defined, call it C, a climate is a probability measure over C.
For example I could define a climate such that it is always raining with probability 1 at a rate of 1mm/h every day of the year, and such that humidity follows a lognormal distribution with a mean that depends on the longitude and latitude, and a variance that is constant. And such that all the other parameters are all follow a uniform distribution over their respective sets of possible values. That's a stupid example but it gives you intuition into what climate is (according to my definition).

hildes wrote:
Finally,
Definition of climate change:
Given a sequence S=(C_1,...,C_N) of climates over a number of years N, S is said to have the climate change property if it is not stationary
...deleted Holy Link...

hildes wrote:

Nope. You cannot. Would you believe that not only are you scientifically illiterate, but you are also mathematically incompetent and extremely gullible.

Let me know if you'd like me to explain to you why your misunderstanding in this area is so egregious.

Yes please explain whatever you think I don't understand in the area of mathematics, stochastic processes, statistics, probability theory and numerical methods since you are so knowledgeable.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think they included covid-cremations, out of respect for those poor souls, who lost their lives, horribly, to this apocalyptic pandemic. Of course, there is a blurry-line, between the crap climate models generate, and actual measured values. After all, it''s very difficult to keep track of which business are still buying energy from planet-killing, fossil =fuel burning power plants. Methane... Doubt the people out in the field, are reliable counting, and measuring each and every cow fart. That's disgusting, not to mention the cows aren't going to tattle, if they send in fabricated readings.

Climate change is a marketing campaign, many buy the product, try to follow along, but can't seem to get the math to match up. So, they just give up, and start just believing what the 'experts' publish.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think they included covid-cremations, out of respect for those poor souls, who lost their lives, horribly, to this apocalyptic pandemic. Of course, there is a blurry-line, between the crap climate models generate, and actual measured values. After all, it''s very difficult to keep track of which business are still buying energy from planet-killing, fossil =fuel burning power plants. Methane... Doubt the people out in the field, are reliable counting, and measuring each and every cow fart. That's disgusting, not to mention the cows aren't going to tattle, if they send in fabricated readings.

Climate change is a marketing campaign, many buy the product, try to follow along, but can't seem to get the math to match up. So, they just give up, and start just believing what the 'experts' publish.

What was apocalyptic about covid? I mean the worlds population continued to grow all the way thru. So grow up

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think they included covid-cremations, out of respect for those poor souls, who lost their lives, horribly, to this apocalyptic pandemic. Of course, there is a blurry-line, between the crap climate models generate, and actual measured values. After all, it''s very difficult to keep track of which business are still buying energy from planet-killing, fossil =fuel burning power plants. Methane... Doubt the people out in the field, are reliable counting, and measuring each and every cow fart. That's disgusting, not to mention the cows aren't going to tattle, if they send in fabricated readings.

Climate change is a marketing campaign, many buy the product, try to follow along, but can't seem to get the math to match up. So, they just give up, and start just believing what the 'experts' publish.

What was apocalyptic about covid? I mean the worlds population continued to grow all the way thru. So grow up

Covid was just a new clod virus, for which humans had nothing close to natural immunity to.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The only people who got seriously ill, or died, were people already in bad shape, medically.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Covid was only a complicating, or contributing factor, not the sole reason.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The liberals maintain, that these people wouldn't have had any problems, if they hadn't gotten infected. Which is why we were all forced to participate. Biden even resorted to extortion, to get more Americans vaccinates. The vaccine, at that point, was pretty much useless, as the two dominant variants (Delta,Omicron were vaccine resistant).

HarveyH55 wrote:
Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in. Hopefully, a Republican House will do an Impeachment Inquiry, a boot that drooling, hair-sniffing moron. Biden was told clearly, had no authority to mandate every American to get vaccinated, before he went with the OSHA extortion scheme. Closest he could come to all Americans, he thought.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think they included covid-cremations, out of respect for those poor souls, who lost their lives, horribly, to this apocalyptic pandemic. Of course, there is a blurry-line, between the crap climate models generate, and actual measured values. After all, it''s very difficult to keep track of which business are still buying energy from planet-killing, fossil =fuel burning power plants. Methane... Doubt the people out in the field, are reliable counting, and measuring each and every cow fart. That's disgusting, not to mention the cows aren't going to tattle, if they send in fabricated readings.

Climate change is a marketing campaign, many buy the product, try to follow along, but can't seem to get the math to match up. So, they just give up, and start just believing what the 'experts' publish.

What was apocalyptic about covid? I mean the worlds population continued to grow all the way thru. So grow up

Covid was just a new clod virus, for which humans had nothing close to natural immunity to.

Covid19 is not of the rhinovirus series (cold viruses). It is from the SARS/Covid series. No virus from the SARS/Covid series of viruses is a cold virus.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The only people who got seriously ill, or died, were people already in bad shape, medically.

SARS/Covid series viruses are known for inducing pneumonia. NONE of them kill, but the pneumonia certainly can if left untreated. Pneumonia is no joke. Treatment must begin early or your options fall off rapidly.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Covid was only a complicating, or contributing factor, not the sole reason.

NONE of the SARS/Covid series viruses kill.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The liberals maintain, that these people wouldn't have had any problems, if they hadn't gotten infected. Which is why we were all forced to participate. Biden even resorted to extortion, to get more Americans vaccinates. The vaccine, at that point, was pretty much useless, as the two dominant variants (Delta,Omicron were vaccine resistant).

This is just Paradox V.
1) I am getting vaccinated to protect myself from covid19.
2) I insist YOU get vaccinated because my vaccination doesn't work.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in. Hopefully, a Republican House will do an Impeachment Inquiry, a boot that drooling, hair-sniffing moron. Biden was told clearly, had no authority to mandate every American to get vaccinated, before he went with the OSHA extortion scheme. Closest he could come to all Americans, he thought.

Using OHSA like this is also unconstitutional.

The Democrats discard the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions. The federal government has been converted into an oligarchy.

Swan wrote:And no virus from the cold or Sars series has ever had a successful vaccination created.

Swan wrote: So if you see a fool in a mask ask them

Swan wrote: ... how many vaccines they had and they will tell you 4. Well then retard why are you wearing a mask if you are vaccinated.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think they included covid-cremations, out of respect for those poor souls, who lost their lives, horribly, to this apocalyptic pandemic. Of course, there is a blurry-line, between the crap climate models generate, and actual measured values. After all, it''s very difficult to keep track of which business are still buying energy from planet-killing, fossil =fuel burning power plants. Methane... Doubt the people out in the field, are reliable counting, and measuring each and every cow fart. That's disgusting, not to mention the cows aren't going to tattle, if they send in fabricated readings.

Climate change is a marketing campaign, many buy the product, try to follow along, but can't seem to get the math to match up. So, they just give up, and start just believing what the 'experts' publish.

What was apocalyptic about covid? I mean the worlds population continued to grow all the way thru. So grow up

Covid was just a new clod virus, for which humans had nothing close to natural immunity to.

Covid19 is not of the rhinovirus series (cold viruses). It is from the SARS/Covid series. No virus from the SARS/Covid series of viruses is a cold virus.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The only people who got seriously ill, or died, were people already in bad shape, medically.

SARS/Covid series viruses are known for inducing pneumonia. NONE of them kill, but the pneumonia certainly can if left untreated. Pneumonia is no joke. Treatment must begin early or your options fall off rapidly.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Covid was only a complicating, or contributing factor, not the sole reason.

NONE of the SARS/Covid series viruses kill.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The liberals maintain, that these people wouldn't have had any problems, if they hadn't gotten infected. Which is why we were all forced to participate. Biden even resorted to extortion, to get more Americans vaccinates. The vaccine, at that point, was pretty much useless, as the two dominant variants (Delta,Omicron were vaccine resistant).

This is just Paradox V.
1) I am getting vaccinated to protect myself from covid19.
2) I insist YOU get vaccinated because my vaccination doesn't work.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in. Hopefully, a Republican House will do an Impeachment Inquiry, a boot that drooling, hair-sniffing moron. Biden was told clearly, had no authority to mandate every American to get vaccinated, before he went with the OSHA extortion scheme. Closest he could come to all Americans, he thought.

Using OHSA like this is also unconstitutional.

The Democrats discard the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions. The federal government has been converted into an oligarchy.

And no virus from the cold or Sars series has ever had a successful vaccination created. So if you see a fool in a mask ask them how many vaccines they had and they will tell you 4. Well then retard why are you wearing a mask if you are vaccinated. If they are honest, they will tell you that they are morons that believe everything that the government babbles because the government really cares about people


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:And no virus from the cold or Sars series has ever had a successful vaccination created.

This is because viruses don't ever have any vaccinations created.

People, on the other hand, create vaccinations that meet with varied levels of success, to include some that meet with very high levels of success.

Swan wrote: So if you see a fool in a mask ask them

Singulars are not plurals. Ask him.

Swan wrote: ... how many vaccines they had and they will tell you 4. Well then retard why are you wearing a mask if you are vaccinated.

The honest answer is/was: "I want to keep my job and/or my business so I can feed my family; I do as I am ordered by the government that will gladly destroy my life."

.

Swan wrote:Wrong